# Was 'one-on-one' combat ever used to settle a country's differences? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 19, 2009, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528 "2009-07-19T11:59:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2009, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/1 "2009-07-19T11:59:13Z")
I’m sure I read or heard that Native American’s used to sort out their tribal disputes in this manner, but I may well be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![cornflakes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9d8465/32.png) [@cornflakes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornflakes)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/2 "2009-07-19T14:49:35Z")
David vs. Goliath? [Titus Manlius Torquatus](http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Liv2His.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=51&division=div2) also comes to mind, though there may have been a battle afterwards and Gaul was far from being conquered. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/3 "2009-07-19T18:26:15Z")
Is this idea of Amerindian braves fighting one on one to settle tribal disputes, just a construct of Disney movies then? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/4 "2009-07-19T18:42:53Z")
Also keep in mind re Torquatus, that the only account we have of him is written from the victors’ side. Probably something like that actually happened, but it was almost certainly embellished some. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/5 "2009-07-19T21:40:06Z")
Single Combat in the Roman Republic Author(s): S. P. Oakley Source: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 35, No. 2 (1985), pp. 392-410 > [@](#): > > The main concern of this essay is with those formal situations in which a champion from one army challenges one of his opponents to a duel and in which the two armies are not normally engaged in fighting at the time and thus watch the spectacle. > … > Polybius stated that Romans fought in single combat both to win a reputation for bravery and to decide the outcome of a battle. This is paradoxical since if one leaves on one side Appian’s story about Scipio Africanus (no. 19) and Silius’ poetic fantasy about Marcellus and Hannibal (no. 10) there are no examples apart from the mythical story of the Horatii and Curiatii in which the outcome of a battle depended upon the outcome of a duel. This, however, is not surprising: one would not expect a city-state, especially one which had a successful army, to decide its wars in so hazardous a manner. Yet Polybius’ remark would seem very apt were it made about several societies more primitive than Rome where single combat was practised. In what follows the function of single combat in a number of these societies will be discussed in order to show how Roman practice differed. One obvious function of single or limited combat was to save bloodshed by letting the outcome of a battle be decided by a limited number of contestants. This aspect has been emphasised by Davie in a very useful synthesis and discussion of the role of champions in primitive societies.64 He compares the phenomenon with the sparing of women and children, the refusal to use poison, the prohibition of fraud, the recognition that some people might wish to stay neutral in a dispute, the granting of inviolability to ambassadors - all these are examples of the mitigation of war. Both aspects will be amply illustrated in the ethnographical material which follows, but it is also worth while to compare other spheres of human action. For the use of advocates in courts of law is a comparable example of an expert championing someone unable to help him/herself. This is particularly the case for the Middle Ages, where champions did decide many cases by fighting,65 a practice also found amongst the Comanche Indians.66 > … > It will become apparent that the practice is in no way confined to the Mediterranean basin or to the Middle East, whence it is most familiar to classical and Biblical scholars, but is found all over the world. The Botocudos of Brazil make a suitable starting point.67 Amongst these folk the combats of champions fulfilled both the functions outlined above. For when one clan of Botocudos trespassed on territory which another clan believed to be its own the two parties tried to settle their dispute by using champions, though sometimes their duels degenerated into a free-for-all. As for the social position of the champion, Keane comments ‘A successful champion often becomes the chief or headman of the community, but he enjoys little personal authority, nor is the office hereditary, so that it is difficult to conceive of a lower state of social organisation’. The practice of the Maoris has been more extensively recorded and discussed.68 For combat-by-champions was a very regular feature of Maori warfare. Best has written: When two hostile forces met on the field of war it often occurred that a chief would step forward and challenge some noted toa, or brave, of the enemy to single combat. It sometimes happened that a noted warrior would thus vanquish in succession several of the enemy, and that the latter would then retreat, leaving their foe in possession of the field; thus the main body of both sides would have taken no part in the fray.69 > … > The Thlinkeet tribes of Alaska used monomachy to settle disputes both between two tribes and between two members of the same tribe.75 When stronger groups of Eskimo met each other, champions were chosen and the losing side gave way. > … > Monomachy was also practised by the Celts. Many of the known instances of single combat involving Romans were fought against Gallic or Iberian Celts (nos. 6, 7, 9, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27-9 above), and the custom is noted in the Gallic ethnography of Diodorus, which is usually held to be a selection from the personal observations of Poseidonius (5.29.2-3): Lots more examples in there but I don’t want to overrun the fair use limit. ---
**Author:** ![Gotterfunken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gotterfunken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gotterfunken)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/6 "2009-07-19T21:40:49Z")
Does “three-on-three” count? Then you could include the battle of the [Horatii](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatii) (representing Rome) versus the Curiatii of Alba Longa. Obviously not a one-on-one combat, and probably embellished quite a bit by Livy (the battle is supposed to have taken place in the 7th century BCE), but it might fulfill the “settling the countries’ differences” factor better. The Torquatus story is reminiscent of scenes from the _Iliad_–one hero challenging a hero from the other side for a one-off fight–there’s no implication that the outcome of that fight would determine the outcome of the entire campaign. With the Horatii and the Curiatii, the Romans and the Albans are said to have been reluctant to wage an all-out war with one another (due in large part to marital ties between the tribes), and so they preferred to settle things with representative warriors determining the victor. Rome won, but not without great cost to the Horatii family. See Corneille’s _Horace_ for one of the most famous adaptations of the story. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/7 "2009-07-19T22:14:52Z")
I have a hard time believing it actually happened on any significant scale; if your side is more likely to win a battle, why would you accept defeat just because your “champion” had lost? The sort of things humans fight battles over are far too important for them to keep to a promise like that, and both sides would surely know it… ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/8 "2009-07-20T06:36:14Z")
I believe that David and Goliath were one example. hh ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/9 "2009-07-20T06:59:47Z")
El Cid Campeador won his title of Campeador (“Tourney Fighter”) in this fashion. Ownership of the city of Calahorra was disputed between Ramiro of Aragon and Fernando of Castille; even asking the townsfolk who would they rather belong to hadn’t worked. Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, called El Cid (Cid means Lord in Arabic, a prisoner he’d won and released without asking for price called him that and it stuck) was chosen to represent Castille. He won. The reason to do it like that is that both kings (who after all were Christians and closely related) reckoned that it was best to go together to fight their southern (Muslim) neighbors than continue losing people over the town. If the Muslim kingdoms had been able to stay united, the Reconquista would still be on… ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/10 "2009-07-20T10:22:02Z")
The Arabs in Muhammad’s time did something similar. Before a battle there would be one on one combat between some champions of the two armies. At Badr, the Meccans made a mistake, they sent their commanders out to fight, while the muslims sent their best fighters, result commanders get killed and the Meccans get decimated in the ensuing battle. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/11 "2009-07-20T12:13:25Z")
In the film **Troy** Brad Pitt naffed off that big bugger no problem. Big buggers king was mightily cheesed off and surrendered his kingdom. Does this count? ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/12 "2009-07-20T15:54:33Z")
> [@chowder](#): > > In the film **Troy** Brad Pitt naffed off that big bugger no problem. > > Big buggers king was mightily cheesed off and surrendered his kingdom. > > Does this count? If we’re going by the Trojan War, there was also the man-to-man combat bnetween Menelaus and Paris. Of course, that was contest! Menelaus was a mighty warrior and Paris was a wuss, so Menelaus wiped the floor with Paris and would surely have killed him. In the “Iliad,” Aphrodite whisked Paris away to safety before he could be killed. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/13 "2009-07-20T17:45:40Z")
> [@cornflakes](#): > > David vs. Goliath? I can’t believe that little boy fought the talking dog. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/14 "2009-07-20T17:54:56Z")
Sorry, can’t give a cite, but I believe in the case of some NAI tribes it was called counting coup (though this also referred to general combat where you acquired coup by killing, wounding or even touching an enemy during a battle)…individual combat often proceeded a general melee. I don’t think it was used to settle the battles, in general, but throughout history individual combats would often happen before a more general battle. ETA: And those individual combats often influenced the psychology of the later combat. Many felt that by winning in these preliminary individual battles their armies became stronger (or weaker), based on the outcome. -XT ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/15 "2009-07-20T18:24:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > ETA: And those individual combats often influenced the psychology of the later combat. Many felt that by winning in these preliminary individual battles their armies became stronger (or weaker), based on the outcome. This applies to the David and Goliath story as well. The belief of both sides was that the gods would have the appropriate champion win, and that was that. It was more a form of divination than some kind of military tactic. You had to either say “The gods told me I should go home because I’m going to lose no matter what” or say “The gods must have made a mistake and I should fight anyway.” It’s also worth pointing out that a lot of old-school conflicts were not much like we imagine them. “Conquering” someone may have meant that you took some of their cows, part of the harvest, and whatever gold you could find and then you went home after demanding some amount of tribute be paid the next year. You didn’t necessarily remove rulers, disrupt existing laws or try to control anything directly. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/16 "2009-07-20T18:42:53Z")
The story of Cúchulainn and Ferdia seems to be based on the idea of single combat between champions of opposing sides (Cúchulainn representing Ulster and Ferdia representing Connacht). But as observed above, after Ferdia was defeated and killed, the two armies went into battle anyway. So I’m not sure what is the significance of the single combat. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/17 "2009-07-20T19:00:17Z")
If you think about it, lots of battles were fought because one Head Honcho wanted to take over the property of another Head Honcho. So Head Honcho Numero Uno gets his boys together and moseys on over to Head Honcho Numero Two-o’s place. So the lackeys and minions could fight, and whoever has the toughest lackeys and minions wins. But since the point is for Honcho Uno to own Honcho Two-o’s lands, if the Honchos just fight each other the conflict can be resolved without anyone else having to fight. Either Honcho Uno will win, in which case there’s no need to fight because Honcho Two-o is now dead, or Honcho Two-o will win, in which case there’s no need to fight because Honcho Uno is now dead. But this can only happen if both Honchos think they can win at single combat, otherwise the guy who thinks he’ll lose will refuse the combat and will instead fight the battle. But the outcome is like when matters of honor could be resolved by a duel. The point of the duel is that it didn’t really matter which guy was dead at the end of the duel, either way the conflict was over. Either the insulter was dead, in which case the insult didn’t matter, or the insultee was dead, in which case the insult didn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/18 "2009-07-20T20:57:02Z")
> [@](#): > > But the outcome is like when matters of honor could be resolved by a duel. The point of the duel is that it didn’t really matter which guy was dead at the end of the duel, either way the conflict was over. Either the insulter was dead, in which case the insult didn’t matter, or the insultee was dead, in which case the insult didn’t matter. Duels often ended with neither party dead. The important thing was just to make it clear how seriously you took the issue. ---
**Author:** ![kasuo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8c91f0/32.png) [@kasuo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kasuo)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-one-on-one-combat-ever-used-to-settle-a-countrys-differences/503528/19 "2009-07-20T21:15:30Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > I can’t believe that little boy fought the talking dog. I’m more shocked that the kid fought something that resembled [ED](http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Goliath)-[209](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ED-209) from Robocop.